How did lance do it?

Fday said:

How can anyone ever know what is the absolute best way to train? There are simply too many variables.

I'd guess that's what was meant by the asterisk. Experimentation is definitely a good thing, so long as it is done within the sweet range of camp 2 rather than jumping back and forth between 1 & 3*.

* actually I don't have a problem with others experimenting on a much broader range, and would be happy to hear success stories which come from outside of the conventional wisdom. That's one of the strengths of hanging out in a virtual place like this.

acoggan said:

Frank,

What is it about the words "aided" and "I think" that you do not understand?

I guess I don't understand your use of those terms.

aid or aided would generally mean to me in this context to help or furnish with help or support. A synonym being help

Think, in this context would generally mean "belief".

So, I read your statement ("as the powermeter greatly aided in the "application of the training philosophy""😉 to mean you have a belief that powermeters do and have done this, without question. What did I misunderstand? My intent was to state that you, seemingly, have this belief despite there being zero scientific evidence to back it up or to support that there is any advantage to the product.

frenchyge said:

* actually I don't have a problem with others experimenting on a much broader range, and would be happy to hear success stories which come from outside of the conventional wisdom. That's one of the strengths of hanging out in a virtual place like this.

+1...unfortunately I do not think you will be getting that from Lord Vadar as he will not share nor verify his success with PE training. I imagine it is because it cost him quite a bit of money.

frenchyge said:

* actually I don't have a problem with others experimenting on a much broader range, and would be happy to hear success stories which come from outside of the conventional wisdom. That's one of the strengths of hanging out in a virtual place like this.

Considering some the exchanges I've had in the past with you regarding training methods "outside the box", I find this statement quite a suprise. Really though, why should anyone have a problem with someone experimenting (Ibuprofen anyone???) with techniques outside of conventional wisdom and study - especially if they're not offering that/those technique(s) for sale...

Before you lace up your boxing gloves, I'm not interested in jumping in the ring - just pointing out what I feel is an inconsistency.

Fday said:

What did I misunderstand?

That 1) by "aided", I meant that I know a lot about the individual's training and devlopment, and 2) by "think" I wasn't making any scientific claims.

IOW, once again you have tried to stir the pot by putting up a strawman argument...

acoggan said:

That 1) by "aided", I meant that I know a lot about the individual's training and devlopment, and 2) by "think" I wasn't making any scientific claims.

IOW, once again you have tried to stir the pot by putting up a strawman argument...

Once again, I haven't done anything than point out the, seeming, inconsistency of your views. You have written a book touting a training feedback method (power meters) for which there is zero scientific evidence that there is any benefit yet you hold essentially everyone else, at least those with any thoughts counter to yours, to an entirely different standard.

Fday said:

Once again, I haven't done anything than point out the, seeming, inconsistency of your views. You have written a book touting a training feedback method (power meters) for which there is zero scientific evidence that there is any benefit yet you hold essentially everyone else, at least those with any thoughts counter to yours, to an entirely different standard.

Once again you repeat your strawman argument about powermeters...

Anyway, this article might give you some insight into how I view the world:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17887811

tonyzackery said:

Considering some the exchanges I've had in the past with you regarding training methods "outside the box", I find this statement quite a suprise. Really though, why should anyone have a problem with someone experimenting (Ibuprofen anyone???) with techniques outside of conventional wisdom and study - especially if they're not offering that/those technique(s) for sale...

Before you lace up your boxing gloves, I'm not interested in jumping in the ring - just pointing out what I feel is an inconsistency.

If you were to jump in the ring, would you prefer Ibuprofen or vicoden?

😄

acoggan said:

Once again you repeat your strawman argument about powermeters...

Anyway, this article might give you some insight into how I view the world:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov17887811Open ↗

Wow, what a great article. To bad you don't ascribe to the principles elicidated in the paper other than you believe it is possible to give good advice based upon science, at least your interpretation of what the science says. Anyone who has a different interpretation better watch out though.

Let me give a few examples. You have consistently opined that the literature has proven that pedaling style doesn't matter and that "just push harder" is the best way to improve. Or, you consistently state that the only feasible explanation for Armstrong's improved efficiency over the years is a change in muscle fibre type. The studies you cite, however, fall short as evidence to support these views in that they have the same major limitation mentioned in the abstract: "Relatively few training studies involving trained distance runners have been conducted, and these studies have often included methodological factors that make interpretation of the findings difficult. For example, the basis of most of the studies was to include one or more specific bouts of training in addition to the runners' 'normal training', which was typically not described or only briefly described. The training status of the runners (e.g. off-season) during the study period was also typically not described. This inability to compare the runners' training before and during the training intervention period is probably the main factor that hinders the interpretation of previous training studies."

The abstract finishes with this statement: "Scientists should be cautious when giving training recommendations to runners and coaches based on the limited available scientific knowledge. This limited knowledge highlights that characterising the most effective training methods for long-distance runners is still a fruitful area for future research."

I couldn't agree more and the same can be said about cycling research and recommendations.

tonyzackery said:

Considering some the exchanges I've had in the past with you regarding training methods "outside the box", I find this statement quite a suprise.

Before you lace up your boxing gloves, I'm not interested in jumping in the ring - just pointing out what I feel is an inconsistency.

No worries. When I said that I was happy to hear of out of the box training experimentation, that didn't mean that I'm happy to *adopt* them based on the success stories alone. I let the experts first beat on them a while looking for holes or alternatives before trying them myself. 😄 Even then, there's a benefit/cost decision to be made since my training time is not cheap.

tonyzackery said:

Really though, why should anyone have a problem with someone experimenting (Ibuprofen anyone???) with techniques outside of conventional wisdom and study - especially if they're not offering that/those technique(s) for sale...

Exactly... in my mind that's using a mindshare forum to leverage other people's time and efforts for my benefit. If others want to be the guinea pigs, then that's great for me, but the return is that I need to be a little skeptical of the info that gets shared back to the community. If you discover a *truly* revolutionary new training technique that you believed to be the secret to ultimate success, would you post it here for free?

frenchyge said:

If you discover a *truly* revolutionary new training technique that you believed to be the secret to ultimate success, would you post it here for free?

Yes, as would some others, although it usually only gets them grief for doing so.

frenchyge said:

Exactly... in my mind that's using a mindshare forum to leverage other people's time and efforts for my benefit. If others want to be the guinea pigs, then that's great for me, but the return is that I need to be a little skeptical of the info that gets shared back to the community. If you discover a *truly* revolutionary new training technique that you believed to be the secret to ultimate success, would you post it here for free?

Apparently our definitions of bolded differ...no prob...tally ho...

Fday said:

You have consistently opined that the literature has proven that pedaling style doesn't matter and that "just push harder" is the best way to improve.

That's a bit of an overstatement, but only a bit.

Fday said:

Or, you consistently state that the only feasible explanation for Armstrong's improved efficiency over the years is a change in muscle fibre type.

It is.

Fday said:

The studies you cite, however, fall short as evidence to support these views

Not in my opinion.

BTW, Frank, you failed to quote my favorite part of that abstract:

"Although direct scientific evidence is limited, we believe that scientists can still formulate worthwhile...recommendations by integrating the information derived from...studies with other scientific knowledge..."

acoggan said:

"Although direct scientific evidence is limited, we believe that scientists can still formulate worthwhile...recommendations by integrating the information derived from...studies with other scientific knowledge..."

Here is your problem as I see it. You hang out here on the internet but are totally incapable of having a reasonable discussion of the scientific merits of any of your various ideas with anyone you consider inferior to you.

You admit there is feeble evidence to support any of these ideas you hold yet you steadfastly hold that anyone who interprets the evidence differently than you must be a complete idiot.

I agree it is possible to make reasonable recommendations regarding training from information derived from the scientific literature. You seem to take from that statement that this is evidence that YOUR analysis is correct and any others holding contrary views are complete imbeciles. As you might have noted, I won't let you get away with it.

Fday said:

Here is your problem as I see it. You hang out here on the internet but are totally incapable of having a reasonable discussion of the scientific merits of any of your various ideas with anyone you consider inferior to you.

And why is that a problem? ;-)

Fday said:

You admit there is feeble evidence to support any of these ideas you hold

No, I do not.

Fday said:

yet you steadfastly hold that anyone who interprets the evidence differently than you must be a complete idiot.

Hey, I long ago decided that the epitaph for my tombstone should be "He did not suffer fools gladly". ;-)

Fday said:

I agree it is possible to make reasonable recommendations regarding training from information derived from the scientific literature. You seem to take from that statement that this is evidence that YOUR analysis is correct and any others holding contrary views are complete imbeciles. As you might have noted, I won't let you get away with it.

It seems to me that I've been "getting away with it" for quite some time...

acoggan said:

Remind us again of your background in the sport? ;-)

I'm a multi award winning pole dancer from Bar 20 called Danika. I know plenty about Powaar.

Thanks Geoff, now my eyes and my mind hurt.

Geoff Vadar said:

I'm a multi award winning pole dancer from Bar 20 called Danika. I know plenty about Powaar.

I've seen Vadar -- he looks something like this, but still goes pretty good.

Good...now I'm blind...

531Aussie said:

I've seen Vadar -- he looks something like this, but still goes pretty good.

531Aussie said:

I've seen Vadar -- he looks something like this, but still goes pretty good.

I have bigger [censored] than that. Its all relative. Compared to Classic1 I'm farken kipkemboi.